Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/31/2008Planning Commission Minutes 01/31/2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes January 31, 2008 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page I of 14 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \mn0I312008.htm 07/15/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Peotter and McDaniel Commissioner Toerge was excused, all others were present. STAFF PRESENT:. David Lepo, Planning Director Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Tony Brine, , Transportation /Development Services Manager Jim Campbell, Senior Planner Jamie Murillo, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary and Administrative Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on January 25, 2008. HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of January 17, 2008. ITEM NO. 1 Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by Commissioner Approved Cole to approve the minutes as corrected. yes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: None I Excused: Toerge ITEM NO.2 UBJECT: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (PA2007 -073) PA2007 -073 One Hoag Drive Continued to request to reallocate up to 225,000 gross square feet of permitted buildable are 02/07/2008 from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus through the approval of the proposed General Plan and Planned Community Development Plan Amendments. Applicant also requests approval of amendments to development regulations contained within the existing Planned Community Development Plan, and reflecting Hoag's Master Plan. Lastly, applicant requests an amendment of the existing Development Agreement to reflect the changes as summarized above and to provide additional public benefits principally in the form of providing funds for improvements and community projects such as streets, parks, water quality and public safety facilities. file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \mn0I312008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/31/2008 item was heard second. Planner James Campbell gave an overview of the staff report. He r ntatives from Bonterra Consulting, Mestre Greve and Linscott Law pan were available to answer questions. cry McKitterick, representing Hoag Hospital, gave an historical background gag, locations, current programs, national recognition and long -range plans. ecified that there is no request for new density, but they are shifting the den: meet the need for increased in- patient critical care. McDermott of Government Solutions representing Hoag gave a station noting: . Aerial site with entrance locations and newer facility buildings; . A General Plan Amendment is necessary to allow the increase in maximum allowable gross square feet of development on the Hoag U Campus with a corresponding decrease in the Lower Campus; . The Planned Community Development Plan provides for the del standards allowing the Master Plan to be evaluated and assessed; . The Coastal Commission has review authority for the Lower Campus well; . The Development Agreement is being amended in negotiations with the Council; . A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report with responses to has been made available to the public; . Square footage transfer of up to 225,000 square feet while maintaining current entitlement of the maximum square footage will not exceed currently approved 1,343,000 square feet; . Upper Campus has 698,000 square feet of building area with a rei entitlement of 67,000 square feet; the Lower Campus has 188,000 feet existing and 389,000 square feet of remaining entitlement; the would be 225,000 square feet; . There are height limits and development requirements associated with buildings, landscaping, mechanical equipment, etc.; . If all the square footage was transferred, the Upper Campus would have allowable 765,000 square feet and the Lower Campus would have 577,( square feet and will not exceed the 1,343,000 square feet; . There are additional minor revisions of definition, clarifications, updat references to completed activities, modified building areas and statistic analysis; new exhibits are provided; the sign program has been updat along with the landscaping regulations including increases in landsca requirements; and, we have asked to amend the noise standards in order address the issues raised in the response to comments; Page 2 of 14 file: / /Y: \Users \PLN \Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\tnn01312008.httn 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/31/2008 The Development Agreement provides for a benefit of a $3,000,000 development fee, which will pay for public improvements in the vicinity o Hoag and elsewhere in the City; . The Master Plan is permitted by the General Plan; . She then requested to present a brief video regarding Hoag and its stating it is essential to the presentation. nissioner Eaton asked for the reasoning for the 225,000 square -feet shift the internal plans are for projects and future plans. McDermott described the thought and planning process that Hoag performs. then described what the board's responsibilities are when considering 4opment; there is a multiple review procedure including a traffic review to i building increment to evaluate access into and internal circulation; othe Is of details will include landscape, setback and height requirements. Stab icies will also have their reviews as will the Coastal Commission. Based on is assessment she noted they need more than the remaining 67,000 squan on the Upper Campus. tairman Hawkins noted his concern that the Cogan plant was not a part of proval and moving the overall square footage of 225,000 square foot entitlen the Upper Campus with no guidelines or local review. He asked if this pro I take out one of those levels of review because it is moving square footage the coastal zone up onto the bluff and, therefore, there will be no Coastal reW these buildings proposing to be built. McDermott answered there will not be Coastal review of the 225,000 sqw removed from the Lower Campus but still would require Coastal review hing built on the Lower Campus. Campbell noted the following requested information: . Cogan Plant - Approval in Concept was issued in September 2002; approval was a transmittal to the Coastal Commission with determination that no discretionary approvals were required; the project filed by Hoag at the Coastal Commission that was approved at a later d the discretionary approval was the original Master Plan approval in 1992; . Structure of the Planned Community text does not provide for future hearings on these buildings that come forward; it does provide for a of traffic impacts for each major phase that comes through and is a r public hearing for the Planning Commission; Section X of the Planned Community text is only invoked when facilities planned that don't comply with the setback standards; provided H designs facilities that are consistent with the Planned Community text site plan review process is never invoked; the setback along Coast High, has a provision where a building has to be set back further depending u its size; staff reviewed this at the time the cogen came forward determined it complied with this provision as well as the horizontal vertical articulation standards; There was an evaluation of view and it was found to be in compliance; analysis was conducted by staff at the time the Approval in Concept Page 3 of 14 file:HY: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \mn01312008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/31/2008 issued; Air Quality Management does review cogen permits, that review conducted and that is what one of the mitigation measure required; facility was issued an Approval in Concept and subsequently a buil permit; . Staff reviewed the AQMD analysis and it was concluded there would be environmental impacts; The roof of the facility with mechanical equipment was reviewed by staff the time of the Approval in Concept and the building permit, and staff w aware of the louvered equipment for screening purposes; the architectu continuity with the front of the facility were well tied -in and, therefore, n the provision of the PC text given the nature of the facility; there will additional exhaust vents when the additional engines come on line and th will be reviewed and approved by AQMD; . Daytime noise is primarily related to the loading dock as well as equipment; Greve of Mestre Greve Associates, noise consultant for the EIR added: . The current noise level at the Villa Balboa residences is 58 dBA, so i about 3dBA higher; that equipment could be baffled and noise reduc currently, Hoag is re- designing some of that equipment and the fans on ancillary buildings are being replaced; in looking at the preliminary plans, are confident that they can hit a 55dBA target for the mechanical equipm( . There will also need to be some sound louvers and equipment removed the west tower and Hoag has indicated that is in process as well; . The applicant is asking for the higher dBA for the loading operations; don't bring trucks in at night, but they do some material handling on loading dock; . Balcony barriers were assessed and they could bring the noise level do, to about 52dBA; the noise level for the existing equipment would not be n at the property line but it would bring it down at the balcony; the impedimi is that Hoag does not have control of that mitigation measure; they col offer it to the residents who would have the choice; mitigation that is out the control of an applicant or the City has CEQA problems; . The City's noise standard is that the indoor noise should be measured wi the windows opened; since it didn't directly address the noise ordinance, v also eliminated that because it did not address the ordinance and again was out of Hoag's control; The request to increase the daytime level of noise decibels is due to t loading dock issue which currently at the residences is at 68 decibels; 70dBA would give a margin of safety; the noise is attributable to the truc coming in and out; we recommended that the bailer and compacter be put an enclosed unit to help the noise situation, but that material handli equipment operates only for a short period so the overall noise level wo go down but we were looking for anything that was feasible that would he Page 4 of 14 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn01312008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/31/2008 the situation; the total noise level is not impacted by this enclosure, but does help; The Noise Ordinance standard for daytime noise is 60dBA and Hoag currently operating at 68dBA; In the Technical Study we looked at a wall along the loading dock that w calculated as a 25.5 foot -high wall that would be needed to get the not levels down below the Ordinance levels; the problem with this high a wall trying to protect third floor units from the noise being generated by the truc about 10 feet above ground; a wall that high is not feasible built that close a residence or that close to a roadway; CalTrans does not build walls higt than 16 feet along the road as it is cost - prohibitive. McDermott added: . Hoag is currently operating at 68dBA and in order to be in conformance a standard we have to be able to operate the hospital; . There is no other place for the loading dock as re- location is not feasible; . Due to the extensive operations of the hospital they ask that 70dBA be worst case so that we would have the flexibility of being consistent and to conform to a standard; . Under construction now are roof walls, enclosures, and changes in equipment in order to get the noise level as low as possible; . We would meet with the residents adjacent to the loading dock to look opportunities for a wall, where it would be placed, what it would look Ii etc.; . Night -time standard should be looked at within the context of the ow noise mitigation plan that we now feel we are prepared to address with residents and we will come back to let you know where we are on that. Campbell added: Change to the PC text regarding irrigation system proposed by Hoag is insert automatic control and irrigation systems. We could add that t controllers be either satellite based or moisture sensitive. . The applicant is requesting to change the parking requirements. Parking support services would be changing from 1 per 1,000 square feet to 0 F 1,000 square feet. The rationale is that the trip generation for those a contained within the parking and trip generation rates of other categories development and is accounted for in other rates. Mitigation Measure 32 requires further study and refinement of parki rates. That is done prior to the issuance of permits for another subsequ( phase of development. That process happened in 2001/2002 in advance the permits for the Women's Pavilion. A trip generation and a parking stu were done and are the basis for the rates that were identified. Hoag suggesting that we incorporate those rates into the Planned Commur text. The other rates were not changed from the 1980 Study. Page 5 of 14 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn01312008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/31/2008 . Hoag, during the daytime, has internal use of the Conference facility and night for external uses. There is a parking need for the external use of tl facility that will need to be studied. Different rates could be recommended. Tony Brine, at Commission inquiry, noted that depending on whether a use atient or out - patient the trip generation rates are different. A 20,000 squa building with an out - patient is based on square footage and with an in -patie it is based on beds. An out - patient use would be in the range of 300+ tri would trigger a Traffic Phasing Ordinance study. An in- patient use would :d on the number of beds. Campbell added that there was a formula in the old General Plan for floor ar( )s for the Upper and Lower Campuses so it is based on the property size time particular factor. The original Master Plan was approved in 1979 and had ;h lower limit than is reflected in the 1992 approval. Campbell noted representatives of the Villa Balboa Association would it time for an organized presentation. comment was opened. Hawkins noted everyone would have the ability to speak on this matter. hele Staples of Jackson/DeMarco representing the Villa Balboa Commur ;ociation gave an overview of her letter submitted to the Planning Departm, t was made part of the permanent administrative record. She added that is disputing that Hoag's mission is laudable and that it has done a lot of gc the community. The problem is the adjoining landowners are being asked it a burden from the impacts of the operation. She continued: . The plumes are a nuisance to the homeowners; . Request to review and comment on any resulting analysis; . Request that all the environmental impacts be analyzed in the EIR; . The EIR discusses the plans to expand the cogeneration plant and cor that the plant is to provide power to the Master Plan Update operations; . The City is to make clear that subsequent environmental assessments required from here on out; . Request the opportunity to work with the City to refine the replacement program; . Hoag had committed to a full enclosure of the loading dock as noted in Planned Community Development criteria; . CEQA does not allow the City to discard mitigation measures e because they will not fully meet existing standards; it requires that they be adopted if they are feasible measure that reduce impacts; . Request the opportunity to discuss the wall that is being proposed as alternative; Page 6 of 14 file : //Y:1UserslPLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes1mn01312008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/31/2008 The Development Agreement imposes unchangeable restrictions on location of development set forth in the Master Plan; the City is saying this restriction only applies if Hoag is asking to increase the total gross area and that it is okay to increase the maximums established by the M,, Plan for each of the Campuses; she then noted sections relating to 111 and location of development; . Hoag has violated the existing Development Agreement by applying for change of building location; . Enforcement of mitigation measures and annual review imposed on Master Plan would have prevented the severity of many of the imp currently happening such as noise, lighting, trees, etc.; the Associ� residents have been greatly impacted in particular by the plumes; . The City has only acted as a result of citizens' complaint regarding operations; . Re- allocation of building square footage is not required for Hoag to meet mission; there is no information on requirements; we are asking for balar and for the City to monitor Hoag's operation and enforce mitigat measures imposed; . We request that the City conduct annual reviews and request that application be denied until Hoag demonstrates a history of compliance and commitment to the mitigation obligations it has accepted; request an amendment to the building plans established by the exi: Development Agreement and Master Plan and deny the open -er amendment proposed by Hoag. imissioner McDaniel stated that noise, building a wall and changing winc issues. In your opinion, what is a resolution? What is the issue with :neration plant? Staples answered enclosing the loading dock. Cogeneration issues are ies that obstruct views and could be a potential health hazard, the unsic machinery, the generated noise that is expected to increase with additi nes, the screening and the terrible way the facility looks from the highway. Thurnher, co- chairman of Villa Balboa Hoag Liaison Committee, noted: • Hoag is a great asset to the community; • Concerned with the cogen plant and presented a PowerPoint of the s referencing the distancing to the residences, view park, number of exhaL stacks, unsightly plumes, release of steam from the roofs creating unsigh conditions, health concerns with venting exhaust, obstruction of ocean vieN and noise; • Hoag did not disclose the plumes as part of plant operation; • No supplemental environmental report was prepared to assess the impact plumes and noise to develop mitigation measures; • The Development Agreement mitigation measure 48 requires a view imps analysis be prepared for each building on the lower campus; • The Development Agreement mitigation measure 41 requires the applice demonstrate buildings on the lower campus will be in compliance with soul regulations; there seems to be no documentation; • No City Council oversight and no public hearings on this construction; Page 7 of 14 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes \mn01312008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/31/2008 • The Development Agreement has not been reviewed on an annual basis a; required; • There is technology available to address these issues; • In the bid documents there was plume abatement equipment listed however, the equipment was removed before the final plant design was met; • The Association has hired engineers to look at the exhaust vents and noise issues. nmissioner McDaniel noted the main concerns are the plume and the noise. I noise can be reduced and the plume dealt with, those are your primary issues. Turner answered "yes ", to the maximum extent possible. e following residents noted their opposition to the application for similar health concerns, noise and oversight of Development Agreement: Kaiser asked if more will be added to the Lower Campus after they this square footage to the Upper Campus? There is an electric ng from the Lower Campus. Stameson concerned with landscaping, lighting on the Lower Campus ;ion issues. Neppell - there has been no review process and we need to work together ess both Hoag and community needs. Lombardi of Newport Crest. er Askeri noted air quality concerns; structural integrity of buildings nearby as some of the walkways may be compromised; quality of life has degrac personal health problems. 9 Quirk, her unit is directly above the cogen plant and she is very concen potential health risks. Hoag, at a joint meeting with Villa Balboa resides J that within a couple of months, Fall of 2005, there would no longer >ions seen from the plumes and that there was nothing to fear. TI ved a letter from Hoag dated August 30th, 2005 a week after national meeting. Residents feel they have been misled by Hoag during ng of this plant. Noted that they are concerned with any multi -level paO lures built on the Lower Campus and particularly with any top lighting. mission inquiry, she presented a copy of the letter. icy Knight, adding a 25 -foot high sound wall would be unsightly as it would breezes and sunlight; enclosing loading docks would reduce noise; there gation measures to address these issues and should be required by the ore granting their request. Quirk noted quality of life, parking and light issues. Sherman noted Hoag had said that there would be no view blockage and cogen plant would only be two stories. The plant blocks views and is 67 gn Miles spoke on behalf of Friends of Sunset View Park noting vesting use rights, responsibilities, annual review of the Development Agreeme w of CEQA baseline analysis. Page 8 of 14 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn01312008.httn 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/31/2008 Jrea Ells indicated the plant is an eyesore; watch and review what the plans the Lower Campus. iy Johnson cited noise and landscape issues with the new child care ce ich has the capacity of 2.5 times the number of children; is this child care employees? This new location of the child care center without landscaping se from the children will diminish the life quality of nearby residents. esa Colunga asked what is going to be done with the traffic light at Place Hospital Road if there is new development allowed on the Upper Campus; c has gotten worse and something needs to be done such as a left-turn no yield. Ross Ribaudo noted that his quality of life due to noise has been grea mpacted. This is a hospital that is asking for more noise to be emitted from thi >wn facilities and being a hospital that request seems to be a conflict. The cogs >lant emissions from the diesel engines is a concern. Reports from the AQMD a )recise on what the amount of emissions and pollutants identified as cant musing are for three engines. There are going to be three more so the emissioi Nill be doubled.. Are there recent studies to ensure that we are safe from what 3eing emitted from that power generating plan? Right now there is no parkii available and if this building is allowed on the Upper Campus, where will there I additional parking? Mecca Karns concerned with the aesthetics and plumes discharge. When rch got too big, they moved elsewhere. Hoag has other facilities elsewl- rbe they can put some of their activities at another location. d Runon, co -chair of the Liaison Committee, asked that Hoag look at aesthetic issue. They have reviewed all documents in the files and F no evidence that Hoag disclosed the plumes. The cogen plant has rance of a factory and is near three parks; the community deserves a bE 1 facility. He asked that the cogen plant be retrofitted with plume abatem isemary Steinbrecker noted the property on Coast Highway was allowed by oastal Commission to be zoned for a hospital. The property was taken off ( rolls because it is now owned by a non - profit organization. If they are ally transfer the entitlement to the Upper Campus, will that Lower Campus get that land back? She then asked about the bond issues for Hoag. Chen indicated there will be quite an impact on parking if the entitlement to the Upper Campus. Traffic will be an issue going onto Newport Blvd. in support of the application: lyer, MD, noted the need is for critical care patients and asked that this rrd Luehrs, President and Chief Executive of the Chamber of Comm I the economic well -being brought to the City through Hoag Hospital. at hand is moving entitlement from the Lower Campus to the UI )us. There are negative impacts from a facility as large as Hoag. cal industry is impacted through technology and community needs re the most amount of flexibility. The cost of the mitigated measures us. This application needs to go forward. comment was closed. Page 9 of 14 file : //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn01312008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/31/2008 issioner McDaniel asked when the cogen plant was constructed. red it was approved in 2002 and construction- commenced late 2003. short recess was taken. r. McKitterick, noted: • Need and plan for square footage on the Upper Campus - critical can aspect of the Upper Campus has a Master Plan that is continually updated evaluation of the need of the community is critical care in the future; the plans for this project need board approval and financing; the plan for thr tower will replace the 1952 building that will serve as the footprint; thr building will be approximately 280,000 - 300,000 square -feet; cos escalation and timing are major concerns; • The building has not been approved yet because it is a variable process; wt plan to build critical care if this application is approved in that location; • The timeframe for delivery is extensive; medical technology is viable oni, about 18 months; there is a community benefit when we do something however the current financial markets will impact what we do; • The cogen plant is a permitted facility; • We have had public meetings to discuss this facility. Commission inquiry, Mr. McKitterick noted the south tower could be larger existing tower and to the extent there is traffic, there will be a traffic anE ,iew. We will follow the terms of the Development Agreement. )I McDermott added that the Planned Community Text currently calls aw by staff to ensure that the application meets all the criteria and mitigat sures and would not require review by the Planning Commission. Th *encing an exhibit, noted the existing and proposed landscaping planned Lower Campus locations, types, trimming and planting timing. She no re new utilities will be placed and screening. She then noted that the ovements have to be approved by the Coastal Commission. There seeping around the child care center and the play area has the slope with ned landscaping that will soften the area; using 24" box size trees and shn are 5 gallon size throughout the area. and a, Ms. McDermott added that the noise is occurring around the they are attempting to meet with the community to look at a windows and how best to combine the noise attenuation. missioner McDaniel noted that the testimony tonight on the cogen es, etc. I understand it is permitted. Is there something that i s. McDermott answered that it is important that your legal counsel advise you. e went through the process that we were requested to do, it was fully permitted was reviewed by the Coastal Commission and whether any of us like thr ocess that was used, the process in place was followed exactly. The facility nov fully permitted and operating. We will address those concerns we can, but alsr aintain that there are some things we regretfully have to disagree on. missioner Peotter asked about the mitigation measures for the steam Lepo stated that the City has retained Fluor Corporation to provide aendent review of possible mitigation measures. We will come back to Page 10 of 14 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn01312008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/31/2008 mission with an update. He discussed the concerns of the noise with cant and will bring that information back to the Commission. The Ling will be a workshop with Hoag, City and residents in the room prese all this information at the same time. Hawkins noted his concern of moving this item forward. He asked be some advance review. McDermott stated that Hoag has hired engineers to look at the issue of ies. The Association has hired there own engineer; and the City has firm Of to oversee what has been done and determine if there are o that might work. Their surveys had shown dollar ranges in 2.5 million for an installation that would be uncertain on >, down -time and the permitting process. Commission inquiry Ms. McDermott added: Elements removed from the original documents did not address the is: that we believe the community felt that it did; we would rather not get that in detail but I think there was some misimpression of what was rem from those documents; The new noise test conducted determined that the noise at the reside units showed we would be in compliance with the Noise Ordinance; it not meet the property line level, but it does meet the standard at the hoi there are no noise standards for parks or open space; The responses to comments were reviewed with the members of the Balboa Association at a meeting on January 18th. Commission inquiry Eric Thurnher noted: The landscape presentation made by Hoag represented an improvement. The planting is not all in place yet but once they are will be a majo improvement. There were a lot more trees represented to be placed in the parking lot and the terminology was there would be a canopy of trees. When the landscaping was put in the parking lot, a lot of the islands tha contain this landscaping were not there. We were subsequently told thel will be moving a lot of equipment as they work on the Upper Campus an( that at some point in the future they will be planted as originally planned. The lighting that is in place is so bright and with the intervention by the City they have been turned off. When the new lighting goes in it is to be ar improvement. There are not to be any unshielded lights on the Lowe Campus and even today there are some on the buildings that are unshielded and this needs to be addressed as well. imissioner Cole inquired about the reference of a $3,000,000 development how it was arrived at the use. Harp noted it is an item that is being negotiated with City Council mem J Hoag. As part of the Development Agreement additional public benefits attached to the project. The amount has been agreed to by Hoag. nmissioner Eaton asked about the feasibility of sound attenuation of dock area. Was a study ever done? Campbell noted that provision is in a paragraph that talks about that g done after what was known as the Critical Care surgery ac struction. That was a project anticipated in the early '90s which would Page 11 of 14 file: //Y: \Users \PLMShared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn01312008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/31/2008 Page 12 of 14 a building between the west tower and Villa Balboa. It was hoped that buildi ild provide some sound attenuation from the loading dock. Once that would e we would then re- assess the noise at that future time and look at the furtl >ibility of enclosing the loading dock. That has not been done because 1 ical Care surgery addition has never been constructed. The intent of ti /ision was to re- evaluate the loading dock at some time. This was looked ng the analysis of the EIR and it was concluded to be not feasible. We will ress this issue in the coming time. He then noted the reference to the Criti e surgery could be removed. Harp noted that there are a lot of items subject to the on -going discussi it the Development Agreement related to noise and these are items are ly for discussion tonight. iairman Hawkins noted his concern that there is something that could be pla( the Development Agreement to address the concerns relayed by tonigl eakers. The loading dock could be reconfigured within the new designs itigate many of these impacts. He would not support the proposal in the gulations to exempt motor vehicles/trucks noise in that loading dock area as t very close to residences and we need to do something there. ;sinner Eaton added it seems unreasonable to ask for an increase in e noise as it is related primarily to the mechanical equipment and it that 55dB could be achieved with the proposed mitigation. He would the increase. )mmissioner Hillgren noted that if we do not approve anything, Hoag car ntinue to operate as is and build the square footage they have entitled. The wement of the square footage to the Upper Campus is generally a good thing. ie opportunity to generate some additional benefits in terms of sounc enuation, better landscaping and some improvements as it relates to the plume: a real benefit. He encourages the neighbors and Hoag to work towards that. iissioner McDaniel added the neighbors are complaining about the there is a problem and Hoag must listen to them. Lepo gave an overview of what staff intends to do and the means Bntation for the next meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Cole and seconded by Commissioner Hillgren to continue this item to February 7, 2008. yes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: None Absent: Toerge JBJECT: Arches Grill (PA 2007 -146) ITEM NO. 3 508 29th Street PA2007 -146 request for an amendment of Use Permit No. 3611 to permit an existing full Approved orvice, low- turnover eating and drinking establishment to: 1) expand their hours operation to include lunch service; 2) increase the number of special event armitted per year from 8 events to 12 events; and 3) reconfigure the dining area, id authorize use of a previously unapproved bar area. The property is located in e Retail and Service Commercial (RSC) land use designation of the Cannery Ilage /McFadden Square Specific Plan District (SP- 6).Commissioner Hawkins )ted that due to a financial conflict, he was recusing himself from deliberation on is item. file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn01312008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/31/2008 Rem was heard first. :ociate Planner Jaime Murillo gave an overview of the staff report. He tl tributed a revised floor plan and revised conditions of approval as it v covered that the size of a booth and two tables were incorrectly illustrated plans previously distributed. The revised plans maintain the same seat co previously proposed and the applicant will use the foyer as a waiting area or ndition 3 reflects the date of the revised site plan; Condition 7 refers to astal Development Permit possible denial and the hours of operation. Lepo added staff does not believe that this adds to the intensification of Coastal Commission staff had been contacted and were undecic refore, staff recommends that the applicant appear at the Coastal Commis; a determination. nissioner McDaniel, noting the change in special events from 8 to 12, a special event was. Murillo answered that anything that operates outside the norm of the o Jitions. The applicant is asking for flexibility on the number of these nts per year. Marcheano, owner and applicant, noted he gets requests for corporate y parties until 11 or midnight. He is asking for the flexibility of the number comment was opened. ten Miles, speaking of behalf of the Newport Beach Brewing Company, not various meetings on his client's application and the parking requirements a 2A determinations. At Commission inquiry, he stated that it seems there t Tucker noted his support of the application as it is a nice place and during there is no problem. comment was closed. ssioner Peotter asked about Condition 7 and a potential hours restriction. the applicant have to come back to amend the Use Permit? Should it be d further? Lepo noted staff is not anticipating problems with Coastal Commission. Id have to consult with the City Attorney's office if that should happen for -opriate response. He suggested leaving the condition as proposed. was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Com to move staffs approval. Commissioner inquiry, Mr. Harp noted that the condition referred to t evious speaker is dissimilar and not on point. In regards to the catego :emtions it was that exact logic that categorical exemptions was designed for appropriate. ;on Hawkins, referring to revised draft condition 7, recommended that be changed to, ... "the restaurant operations shall be limited to the hi Page 13 of 14 file: //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn01312008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/31/2008 Page 14 of 14 of 5:00 P.M. to 11:00 p.m.,..." The maker and second of the motion accepted the change. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: None Excused: Toerge ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up - Mr. Lepo reported that at the last meeting the second reading was heard on the Residential Care Facilities ordinance and will take affect in February; and, the second reading on the PC text for 919 Bayside was heard. b. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Chairman Hawkins noted there was no meeting. C. Report from the Planning Commission's representative to the General Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee - Commissioner Eaton noted they went over the program, staff will present their review and will be heard by the Commission at mid -July, the actual re- zonings will be included; there was a discussion on the proposed traffic Master Plan CIP program including costs Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like Staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. f. Project status - none. g. Requests for excused absences - none. ADJOURNMENT: 11:20 p.m. JADJOURNMENT BRADLEY HILLGREN, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION file : //Y:1UserslPLN\SharedlPlanning CommissionlPC Minutes1mn01312008.htm 07/15/2008